Plaintiff v Defendant

1 This ruling addresses the defendant's (defendant or Mr Wu) application (Request Application) by amended summons filed 29 October 2025 (Amended Summons) for an order under r 41.01(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Rules) that the Court send a letter of request (Letter of Request) pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Convention)[1] to the Central Authority of the People's Republic of China (China) seeking to facilitate the audio-visual examination and cross-examination of Mr Wu.

2 The background to the proceeding and this application is revealed in large part through my reasons in Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd v Wu[2] and Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd v Wu (No 2)[3] (together, Previous Melco Reasons). These reasons assume a familiarity with the Previous Melco Reasons and should be read together with them.

3 The trial of this proceeding commenced on 5 August 2025 and was adjourned part heard on 7 August 2025 after the openings had concluded and all the lay and expert evidence had been heard except for the lay evidence of Mr Wu. Why this is so and how it resulted in the Request Application is explained in part in the Previous Melco Reasons and further below.

4 As addressed in the Previous Melco Reasons and the affidavits relied upon in respect of the applications which they concerned, shortly before trial it become apparent that Mr Wu was subject to a 'no fly' order in China that prevented him from leaving China for any reason (Travel Restrictions). In an affidavit affirmed by Mr Maxwell Joy, the defendant's solicitor, on 5 August 2025, it was deposed that the 'no fly' order had been imposed following convictions related to money laundering and for which a Community Corrections Order was imposed on Mr Wu, of which the Travel Restrictions formed part, and which is currently in place until at least 9 February 2030.

5 In consequence of the Travel Restrictions, the defendant sought an order that his evidence be taken by audio-visual link from China, which was ultimately not opposed. However, some wrinkles emerged when expert evidence on Chinese law was filed. This issue was addressed in a report of Professor Andrew Godwin (Report). Professor Godwin opined regarding the challenges faced and, in substance, concluded that taking Mr Wu's evidence by audio-visual link from China in the circumstances would contravene Chinese law unless the necessary authority or permission was obtained. The Report read in part as follows:[4]

1. The following provisions of the PRC Civil Procedure Law[5] are relevant to the Question:

Article 293

According to international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, people's courts and foreign courts may request mutual assistance in the service of legal documents, investigation, collection of evidence, and other acts in connection with litigation, on each other's behalf.

If any matter in which a foreign court requests assistance would harm the sovereignty, security or public interest of the People's Republic of China, the people's court shall not comply.

Article 294

The request for, and provision of, judicial assistance must be undertaken in accordance with the channels provided in an international treaty concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China; in the absence of treaty relations, it must be undertaken through diplomatic channels.

A foreign embassy or consulate to the People's Republic of China may serve process on and investigate and collect evidence from its citizens but must not violate the laws of the People's Republic of China and must not take compulsory measures.

Except as provided in the preceding paragraphs, no foreign authority or individual may, without permission from the competent authorities of the People's Republic of China, serve process or investigate and collect evidence within the territory of the People's Republic of China.

1. By way of preliminary comment, I note that the term 'judicial assistance' ... refers broadly to the administration of justice and does not refer only to the courts.

2. Article 294 affects the ability of a party or a foreign court to obtain evidence by video in China by limiting the collection of evidence without the permission of the competent authorities to the following two circumstances:

(i) in accordance with international treaties concluded or acceded to by the PRC; or

(ii) in the absence of treaty relations between the PRC and the foreign country in which the proceedings are taking place, through diplomatic channels.

1. In relation to the circumstance outlined in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 3 above, I note that both the PRC and Australia are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters (the 'Hague Evidence Convention').[6] The Hague Evidence Convention provides a basis on which evidence may be taken in signatory countries through the transmission and execution of Letters of Request or through diplomatic channels. Except as stated below, this Report does not examine the specific application of the Hague Evidence Convention in the case of the PRC or Australia or the impact of any reservations made by either country in respect of its adoption of the Hague Evidence Convention.

2. The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has published a document concerning the taking of evidence by video-link under the Hague Evidence Convention.[7] The document was prepared for a Special Commission meeting on the practical operation of the Hague Evidence Convention in February 2009 and states that it was 'designed to prepare and assist these discussions, in particular as regards the legal bases for the taking of evidence by video-links under the Evidence Convention and possible future work that may be undertaken by the Permanent Bureau in this field.'[8] The PRC does not appear to have expressed any position in relation to the taking of evidence by video-link under the Hague Evidence Convention.[9]

3. It is my view that, under Article 294, the taking of evidence by live audio-visual link (including by being cross-examined) from a China-based witness without the consent of a competent Chinese authority, and other than in the two circumstances outlined in paragraph 3 above, would be in contravention of Article 294 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law. For this purpose, a China-based witness would include both a Chinese citizen (i.e. Chinese national) and a foreign citizen (i.e. foreign national), except in the circumstances outlined in paragraphs 9 - 14 below.

4. A literal interpretation of Article 294 suggests that the contravening party would be the 'foreign authority or individual' (including the foreign court) that collected the evidence and not the Chinese-based witnesses who gave the evidence. Any order or judgment made by a foreign court that was based on evidence taken in contravention of Article 294 would likely result in a refusal by Chinese courts to recognise and enforce the order or judgment. This is for the following reasons:

(a) Article 298 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law provides a basis on which an application can be made to an intermediate people's court for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment;

(b) Article 299 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law provides that a foreign judgment may be recognised and enforced (1) in accordance with an international treaty to which the PRC is a signatory or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity; and (2) provided that the foreign judgment does not violate the basic principles of PRC law and does not damage state sovereignty, security or the public interest; and

(c) a contravention of Article 294 is likely to constitute a 'violation of the basic principles of PRC law' and result in an order or judgment made by a foreign court being denied recognition and enforcement. It may also 'damage state sovereignty' on the basis that the taking of evidence in contravention of Article 294 would involve an intrusion on the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China.

1. Any order or judgment made by a foreign court that was based on evidence taken in contravention of Article 294 would likely result in a refusal by Chinese courts to recognise and enforce the order or judgment. This is for the following reasons:

(a) Article 298 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law provides a basis on which an application can be made to an intermediate people's court for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment;

(b) Article 299 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law provides that a foreign judgment may be recognised and enforced (1) in accordance with an international treaty to which the PRC is a signatory or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity; and (2) provided that the foreign judgment does not violate the basic principles of PRC law and does not damage state sovereignty, security or the public interest; and

(c) a contravention of Article 294 is likely to constitute a 'violation of the basic principles of PRC law' and result in an order or judgment made by a foreign court being denied recognition and enforcement. It may also 'damage state sovereignty' on the basis that the taking of evidence in contravention of Article 294 would involve an intrusion on the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China.[10]

1. In response to the reference in the Question to 'a person with Australian citizenship', I note the second paragraph of Article 294:

A foreign embassy or consulate to the People's Republic of China may serve process on and investigate and collect evidence from its citizens but must not violate the laws of the People's Republic of China and must not take compulsory measures.

1. This provision is consistent with Article 15 of the Hague Evidence Convention:

Article 15

In a civil or commercial matter, a diplomatic officer or consular agent of a Contracting State may, in the territory of another Contracting State and within the area where he exercises his functions, take the evidence without compulsion of nationals of a State which he represents in aid of proceedings commenced in the courts of a State which he represents.

A Contracting State may declare that evidence may be taken by a diplomatic officer or consular agent only if permission to that effect is given upon application made by him or on his behalf to the appropriate authority designated by the declaring State.

1. Pursuant to the following reservation made by China,[11] Article 15 is the only provision in Chapter II of the Hague Evidence Convention (taking of evidence by diplomatic officers, consular agents and commissioners) that is applicable to China:

in accordance with Article 33 of the Convention, the provisions of Chapter II of the Convention except for Article 15 will not be applicable.[12]

1. In March this year, the Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China published 'Frequently Asked Questions on International Civil and Commercial Judicial Assistance' ('FAQ') on its website.[13] Questions 6 and 7 of the FAQ are as follows:

   1. Can foreign judicial authorities or individuals directly question witnesses located in China (including through telephone, video, or other technical means)?

Answer: No. When China acceded to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence, it made a complete reservation to Chapter II of the Convention except Article 15. Foreign judicial authorities are prohibited from directly obtaining evidence from witnesses located within Chinese territory. Relevant foreign authorities should submit requests for evidence through the channels provided for in the treaty, or through diplomatic channels, to the Ministry of Justice. Requests will be processed by the People's Court after approval.

1. Can foreign judicial authorities or relevant personnel engage lawyers or other institutions in China to question witnesses or other personnel, or retrieve materials located in China, and use the results in litigation in foreign courts?

Answer: According to China's Civil Procedure Law, the collection of evidence shall be conducted by the People's Court or by lawyers with the approval of the People's Court. No other institution or individual may collect evidence within Chinese territory.

1. Although not legally binding, the FAQ provides guidance on the interpretation of the Ministry of Justice concerning the requirements for the collection of evidence in China from witnesses in foreign proceedings.
2. I am not aware of any official guidance in respect of the interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 294 of the Civil Procedure Law. However, based on my reading of the provision , the above guidance and general commentaries, it is my opinion that Chinese law permits Australian courts to collect evidence from Australian citizens - but not from Chinese citizens or citizens of third countries - through the Australian Embassy or consulates in China . As provided in the second paragraph of Article 294, this is subject to two requirements: (1) the process would not violate the laws of the PRC; and (2) compulsory measures are not taken.[14]

6 As a result of Professor Godwin's evidence, which the plaintiff did not seek to contradict or question, the parties agreed that it was appropriate to see if diplomatic assistance could be obtained in order to have Mr Wu's evidence taken without delay. In this regard the defendant relied upon a series of affidavits,[15] to which I refer but are not necessary to set out in detail. Relevantly for the present purposes, that evidence included the various efforts made by the defendant's solicitors to have Mr Wu give evidence through diplomatic channels. The relevant communications were exhibited and, in short, revealed that the defendant's solicitor was unable to facilitate the taking of Mr Wu's evidence through those diplomatic channels.

7 Consequently, it was determined that for Mr Wu to give evidence in the proceeding the relevant Chinese authority would need to be contacted through a formal Letter of Request process pursuant to the Convention, hence this Request Application was made.

Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters

8 The Letter of Request is a product of the Convention. Relevant provisions include the following:

CHAPTER I - LETTERS OF REQUEST

Article 1

In civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a Contracting State may, in accordance with the provisions of the law of that State, request the competent authority of another Contracting State, by means of a Letter of Request, to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act. A Letter shall not be used to obtain evidence which is not intended for use in judicial proceedings, commenced or contemplated. The expression "other judicial act" does not cover the service of judicial documents or the issuance of any process by which judgments or orders are executed or enforced, or orders for provisional or protective measures.

Article 2

A Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority which will undertake to receive Letters of Request coming from a judicial authority of another Contracting State and to transmit them to the authority competent to execute them. Each State shall organise the Central Authority in accordance with its own law. Letters shall be sent to the Central Authority of the State of execution without being transmitted through any other authority of that State.

...

Article 8

A Contracting State may declare that members of the judicial personnel of the requesting authority of another Contracting State may be present at the execution of a Letter of Request. Prior authorisation by the competent authority designated by the declaring State may be required.

Article 9

The judicial authority which executes a Letter of Request shall apply its own law as to the methods and procedures to be followed. However, it will follow a request of the requesting authority that a special method or procedure be followed, unless this is incompatible with the internal law of the State of execution or is impossible of performance by reason of its internal practice and procedure or by reason of practical difficulties. A Letter of Request shall be executed expeditiously.

...

CHAPTER II - TAKING OF EVIDENCE BY DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS, CONSULAR AGENTS AND COMMISSIONERS

...

Article 15

In a civil or commercial matter, a diplomatic officer or consular agent of a Contracting State may, in the territory of another Contracting State and within the area where he exercises his functions, take the evidence without compulsion of nationals of a State which he represents in aid of proceedings commenced in the courts of a State which he represents. A Contracting State may declare that evidence may be taken by a diplomatic officer or consular agent only if permission to that effect is given upon application made by him or on his behalf to the appropriate authority designated by the declaring State.

9 Under art 1 of the Convention, this Court, being a judicial authority of a Contracting State (Australia), may request the competent authority of another Contracting State (in this case China) to obtain evidence from the defendant.[16]

10 The Hague Conference on Private International Law - Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé (HCCH), is an intergovernmental organisation that plays an administrative role in connection with the Convention. The HCCH administers a website which contains, among others, the Evidence Section[17] on the Convention, including the Convention's full text, current status, information on contracting parties, and a recommended model letter of request (Model Request). It was this Model Request that was annexed to the Amended Summons.

11 The information on contracting parties and the other information that the HCCH website provides was of considerable assistance to the parties and the Court, including the Central Authority & Practical Information page,[18] which is attached as Annexure A. For example, art 2 of the Convention refers to a 'Central Authority which will undertake to receive Letters of Request coming from a judicial authority'. Based on the Central Authority & Practical Information page, it is apparent that China has designated the Ministry of Justice, International Legal Cooperation Center (ILCC) as its Central Authority for the purposes of art 2.[19]

12 The Central Authority & Practical Information page also provides information on, among other things: addresses and contact details; whether a declaration as to the presence of judicial personnel at the execution of the Letter of Request has been made under art 8; whether a translation of the Letter of Request is required; expected execution times;[20] relevant domestic rules on the taking of evidence; whether a Letter of Request should include specific questions to be used during witness examination or only a list of matters to be addressed; and whether an oath is generally administered to the witness.

Rules 41.01, 41.13, 41.14 and 41.15 of the Rules

13 The Request Application seeks an order pursuant to r 41.01 of the Rules, which is in the following terms:

(1) The Court may, for the purpose of any proceeding, make an order for -

(a) the examination of any person before a Judge of the Court or an Associate Judge or such other person as the Court appoints as examiner at any place whether within or out of Victoria; or

(b) the sending of a letter of request to the judicial authorities of another country to take, or cause to be taken, the evidence of any person.

(2) An order under paragraph (1)(a) shall be in Form 41A or 41B, as the case requires.

(3) An order under paragraph (1)(b) shall be in Form 41C.

14 Rules 41.13, 41.14 and 41.15 of the Rules are also relevant and provide as follows:

(1) Where an order is made under Rule 41.01(1)(b) for the sending of a letter of request, the party obtaining the order (in this Order called the applicant ) shall when the letter of request has been signed -

(a) lodge with the Prothonotary -

(i) the letter of request;

(ii) any interrogatories and cross-interrogatories to accompany the letter of request; and

(iii) a translation of each of the documents referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) in accordance with Rule 41.14, unless the Senior Master has given a general direction in relation to the country to whose judicial authorities the letter of request is to be sent that no translation need be provided or the official language or one of the official languages of that country is English;

(b) file -

(i) a copy of each of the documents referred to in paragraph (a); and

(ii) an undertaking in accordance with Rule 41.15; (c) unless the Court otherwise orders, serve a copy of each of the documents referred to in paragraph (a) on all other parties.

(2) A letter of request shall be in Form 41D.

41.14 Translation

A translation of a document lodged under Rule 41.13 shall -

(a) be a translation into an official language of the country to whose judicial authorities the letter of request is to be sent; and

(b) bear a certificate of the translator, in that language, stating that it is an accurate translation of the document.

41.15 Undertaking

(1) An undertaking filed under Rule 41.13 shall consist of an undertaking by the solicitor for the applicant or, where there is no solicitor, by the applicant, to pay to the Prothonotary an amount equal to the expenses incurred in consequence of the letter of request.

(2) The Prothonotary may require the applicant or the applicant's solicitor to give security to the Prothonotary's satisfaction for the expenses referred to in paragraph (1).

15 Although the plaintiff did not oppose the Request Application and essentially supported it, frustration was understandably expressed at the need to adjourn the trial part heard and at the prospect of delay. Pursuant to requests and directions from the Court, counsel and solicitors for the parties worked cooperatively together to produce a proposed draft Letter of Request for consideration by the Court, also incorporating and adopting a number of suggestions raised by the Court at the hearing on 7 November 2025.

16 A jointly proposed draft Letter of Request was provided to the Court for its consideration on 13 November 2025, which was reviewed and returned to the parties later that day with revisions for consideration. The revised form of the proposed Letter of Request was agreed to by the parties on 14 November 2025, following which appropriate orders were made, and I signed and sealed the Letter of Request as the requesting judicial authority.

17 Although as things transpired the Request Application for the issue of the Letter of Request was not opposed, it of course remained necessary for the Court to consider and determine whether a Letter of Request should be sent, and to be satisfied that it was in a form appropriate to be sent. This is to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the position and submissions of the parties, as occurred here. In so doing the Court was also required to seek to give effect to the overarching purpose in s 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic ) (CP Act) as required by s 8 of that Act, and to take into account the objects in s 9 of the CP Act, as also occurred.

18 Having taken into account the affidavit evidence and the circumstances in the proceeding as they currently stand, I concluded that it was appropriate to send the Letter of Request to the Central Authority of China. It is desirable to make some brief observations as to why that is so.

19 First, Mr Wu is the defendant and he wishes to give evidence.

20 Second, as things stand, the plaintiff wishes Mr Wu to give evidence so as to enable him to be cross-examined.

21 Third, it is apparent from, among other things, the pleadings, opening submissions, and evidence in the trial to date, that Mr Wu's evidence is relevant to a central issue in the case, namely whether Mr Wu's signature appears on one or more of the related documents relied upon by the plaintiff in respect of its substantial debt claim against Mr Wu. It is to be noted in this context that Mr Wu denies that he signed critical documents relied upon by the plaintiff in this proceeding.

22 Fourth, and as recorded in the Previous Melco Reasons, it is apparent that as things stand there is no ability for Mr Wu's evidence to be given outside of China, even though it is said that he would willingly do so if that were possible.

23 Fifth, the affidavit evidence, including the communications exhibited to the affidavits, reveals that appropriate steps have been taken by the solicitors for the defendant to seek to obtain authority by less formal means, and also to seek diplomatic assistance. On the material before me, these were appropriate steps for the defendant to take. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful to date, although further attempts are also to be made.

24 Sixth, Australia and China are parties to the Convention and the Convention provides a mechanism for seeking to obtain the evidence from Mr Wu, noting also that the Letter of Request recites the circumstances, and requests that the Central Authority of China respond with urgency if that is possible.

25 Seventh, at this point the defendant's application to have his evidence heard by audio-visual link has been adjourned to a date to be fixed. This course was originally proposed by the plaintiff so as to ensure that the audio-visual link application can be considered in the light of the content of any response to the Letter of Request. This was a practical and sensible proposal, which was responsibly agreed to by senior counsel for Mr Wu.

26 Eighth, although the Letter of Request has been prepared and put forward cooperatively between the parties, its proposed despatch is without prejudice to the position of each of the parties later to submit that the trial should resume and proceed to closing submissions without the evidence of Mr Wu, and whether or not a response to the Letter of Request has been received. In part, this course has been adopted because it is not currently known what time will be taken for the Central Authority of China to process the Letter of Request, or what response is to be or may be received. It is also the case that, irrespective of the position of the parties, it remains open to the Court of its own motion to proceed with the trial at any time should it consider it to be appropriate to do so, although such a course would not be adopted without first giving the parties a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

27 Ninth, until the nature and extent of the assistance able to be provided by the Central Authority of China is known, neither the Court nor the parties are in a position to make any submissions regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of such assistance as may be able to be given to this Court. Consequently, it remains open to each of the parties, and of course the Court, to address the question of whether the trial should proceed by reference to such assistance as may be able to be provided as and when that becomes known.

28 For completeness, and in case it is of assistance in future applications of this kind, I also record that consideration has been given by the Court to the most appropriate means by which the Letter of Request is to be transmitted to the Central Authority of China. With the assistance of the Prothonotary and their staff, for which I am grateful, I have concluded that the appropriate course is for the Letter of Request, together with the certified translation, to be provided to the Prothonotary so that, in turn, it can be provided to the private international and commercial law section of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department (A-G's Department), who serve as Australia's Central Authority under art 2 of the Convention. The A-G's Department will then send the Letter of Request to the Central Authority of China, noting also that such assistance as is to be provided by the A-G's Department is gratefully acknowledged by the parties and the Court.

29 I add that the Letter of Request will not be sent until the defendant has filed the undertaking required by rr 41.13 and 41.15 of the Rules.

30 The Letter of Request to be despatched combines a modified version of Form 41D under the Rules[21] and the Model Request earlier referred to, and as I have said, it is to be accompanied by certified translations. In case it is of assistance for future applications, a copy of the Letter of Request (excluding the certified translations) is annexed as Annexure B to these reasons.

31 It is appropriate to send the Letter of Request in the form of Annexure B, together with certified translations, to the Central Authority of China through the A-G's Department. To this end, orders were made on 14 November 2025 as follows:

1. Pursuant to rule 41.01(1)(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Supreme Court Rules), a letter of request in the form attached to these orders, be issued, directed and sent to the Central Authority of the People's Republic of China under Article 2 of the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, for the audio-visual examination of Mr Jian Hong Wu of 2-3-801, West Fu, Fan Hai Shi Jia, No. 1 Huazhang East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing (Letter of Request).
2. The Letter of Request be sent together with a certified translation of its terms, which is to be provided to the Court by the Defendant.
3. Subject to order 1 above, the requirements pursuant to rules 41.01(3) and 41.13(2) of the Supreme Court Rules are otherwise dispensed with.
4. Within three business days of the Letter of Request being signed, the Defendant complete the further steps outlined in rules 41.13 to 41.15 of the Supreme Court Rules.
5. By 4:00pm on 14 November 2025, the Defendant advise the Plaintiff and the Court of any further proposed steps the Defendant intends to take to seek permission from the relevant Chinese authorities for the Defendant to give evidence via audio-visual link, other than the Letter of Request (Alternative Steps).
6. The Defendant provide the Plaintiff with the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Alternative Steps, including the drafting of any communications and documents prepared in support of the proposed Alternative Steps.
7. By 4:00pm on 12 December 2025, and thereafter on a monthly basis, the Defendant provide the Plaintiff and the Court with a written update as to the status of any Alternative Steps, and insofar as it is aware, the progress of the Letter of Request.
8. The further hearing of the Defendant's application by summons for evidence by audio-visual link, filed 30 July 2025, be adjourned for mention on 20 March 2026.
9. The further hearing of the trial be adjourned to 20 March 2026.
10. Costs reserved.
11. Liberty to apply.

[1] Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, opened for signature 18 March 1970, 847 UNTS 231 (entered into force 7 October 1972) (Convention).

[2] [2025] VSC 460.

[3] [2025] VSC 479.

[4] Andrew Godwin, Report (Report of Expert, 4 September 2025).

[5] The current version of the PRC Civil Procedure Law followed amendments made in 2023 (the '2023 Civil Procedure Law').

[6] Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters (concluded 18 March 1970), available at .

[7] Preliminary Document No 6 of December 2008, available at .

[9] For discussion, see Guangjian Tu, Private international law in China (Singapore, Springer 2016), 167. Tu notes, ibid, that the 'taking of evidence through modern technology such as audio and/or video transmission has been permitted in Chinese courts since the SPC [Supreme People's Court] Evidence Provisions were publicized as early as in 2002 and has been formally accepted by Chinese CPL in 2012.' The relevant provision in the 2023 Civil Procedure Law governing 'audio-visual transmission technology' ... in Chinese courts is Article 76.

[10] In this regard, I note (but do not make any comments in relation to) the judgment of Robb J in Haiye Developments Pty Ltd v The Commercial Business Centre Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 732 at [42] and [54]; the judgment of Perram J in Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Adjournment) [2020] FCA 539 at [2]; and the judgment of Basten AJ in Wang Chunfeng v Law Society of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 986 at [16], [17], [20]-[25].

[11] For the English translation of the reservation, see the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, available at https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/notifications/?csid=493&disp=resdn.

[12] The Chinese text is as follows: '根据公约第三十三条声明，除第十五条以外，不适用公约第二章的规定。'.

[13] People's Republic of China, Ministry of Justice, 'Frequently Asked Questions on International Civil and Commercial Judicial Assistance' [国际民商事司法协助常见问题解答] (21 March 2025), available at .

[14] Implicit in this requirement is that the evidence is given on a voluntary basis.

[15] Maxwell Joy, Affidavit (30 July 2025); Maxwell Joy, Affidavit (23 September 2025); Maxwell Joy, Affidavit (13 October 2025); Benjamin Grillo, Affidavit (6 November 2025).

[16] At the risk of stating the obvious, the reference in the Convention to the execution of the Letter of Request refers to the judicial authority carrying out the request in response to the letter, not the signing of the Letter of Request.

[17] 'Evidence Section', HCCH (Web Page) https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/evidence.

[18] 'Authorities', HCCH (Web Page) .

[20] Which in this case are expressed to be a 6 to 12 month period.

[21] See also r 1.13(3) of the Rules, which provides that where the Rules prescribe a form for use, that form shall be used with any necessary variation or modification.